VIPAN KUMAR(Not Applicable) vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/17293/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HPHC010610572025

Filing Number

CWP/51683/2025

Filing Date

26-Sep-2025

Registration No

CWP/17293/2025

Registration Date

04-Nov-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VIPAN KUMAR(Not Applicable)

    Adv. R P Singh,Sunil Thakur,Sunil Thakur, ,Sunil Thakur

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. ,Rajesh Prakash Om Prakash,AG 1123

  2. 2.Director-cum- Special Secretary of Panchayati Raj,(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.Chief Executive Officer(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Next hearingPending

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

    In CWP No.17293/2025 (Vipan Kumar v. State of H.P. & Ors.), the case was adjourned on 23.03.2026 as the petitioner failed to appear despite repeated calls. The court, in the interest of justice, listed the matter for hearing on 28.04.2026. Respondents were represented by counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  4. 17-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  5. 17-Dec-2025

    Office Objection

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

  6. 07-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  7. 07-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 26-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/17293/2025

casestatus.in Summary

In CWP No.17293/2025 (Vipan Kumar v. State of H.P. & Ors.), the case was adjourned on 23.03.2026 as the petitioner failed to appear despite repeated calls. The court, in the interest of justice, listed the matter for hearing on 28.04.2026. Respondents were represented by counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case